Berkeley holds long debate on vacancy tax; council continues item for more analysis

Vice Mayor Harrison presented a draft ordinance establishing an annual vacancy tax on residential units that are not available to rent for at least 182 days in a calendar year, with exemptions for owner‑occupants, low‑income seniors, probate, units under construction and certain disaster‑damaged dwellings. Finance preliminarily estimated the measure could raise roughly $5.8 million–$8.7 million a year based on rent‑board data for units flagged as not available to rent.

Harrison framed the proposal as an incentive to put existing housing back on the market and said the tax would primarily target corporate and non‑resident owners who leave buildings idle. "The tax for me is a win win," she said, adding that it is intended to encourage renovation and return to rental service rather than primarily to raise revenue.

Council members pressed for clarifications on several fronts: who would be subject to the tax, how self‑reported 'not available for rent' (NAR) designations would be verified, whether duplex/triplex/quadruplex owners would be unfairly caught, and how the city would enforce violations without a costly investigative unit. Rent‑board staff explained that many NAR categories are self‑reported, that the rent board conducts periodic exemption verification checks, and that current practices rely on neighbor or tenant complaints to prompt follow‑up.

Public comment stretched for more than an hour. Tenant and community groups, the Alameda County Democratic Party and student organizations voiced strong support and urged the council to put the measure on the ballot; neighborhood speakers and some small landlords urged stronger exemptions and a clearer appeals process to avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on small, long‑time property owners. Real‑estate representatives warned the revenue forecast may overstate collections and urged a careful administrative cost estimate.

After extended debate, the council voted to continue the item to a special meeting on Aug. 3, asking staff to return with revised language, clearer enforcement protocols, analysis of impacts on small owners and people of color who own duplexes/triplexes, and further revenue and cost estimates. Councilmembers suggested removing the measure’s sunset, clarifying disaster exemptions and strengthening appeal and notice procedures.

The vacancy tax discussion produced wide public interest: advocates emphasized the measure’s potential to address immediate housing availability, while opponents and some council members urged more precise targeting and safeguards for small landlords and seniors.